For too long, politicians and planners have ignored or sugarcoated the housing crisis—with dramatic consequences. Not only have mainstream parties been punished for neglecting one of the most pressing social issues of our time, but they have also fueled the rise of political extremism on both the right and the left. It’s time for change.Here are 50 proposals to address the problem. None of them will solve the housing crisis alone, but together, they can make a meaningful difference.

1. Use reliable data—and interpret it wisely

A study by the London School of Economics found that housing demand figures often carry a significant margin of error—up to 25 percent either way. This isn’t surprising: the housing market is not a fixed system but a dynamic one. Supply shortages and high prices prompt people to delay moving, make compromises, or find alternative housing arrangements. This is why the current housing shortage hasn’t led to mass homelessness, but to widespread dissatisfaction. For policymakers, this means that even when estimates suggest supply is sufficient, a shortage may still arise—potentially within the margin of error. Therefore, it’s prudent to allow more, not less, construction.

2. Turn more residents into owners

Real estate price increases are especially problematic when they lead to rent hikes, as renters feel the impact quickly. But owner-occupiers are largely shielded: their mortgage stays fixed, and rising property values benefit them—lowering their loan-to-value ratio and offering profit potential on resale. Property ownership also protects against inflation, which often outpaces wage growth. The public sector should play a greater role in encouraging homeownership. Tax relief, such as waiving real estate transfer taxes or reducing construction-related levies, can help.

3. Support partial ownership models

Even with tax breaks, many tenants struggle to raise the capital needed to finance a home. Shared ownership models—widely used in other countries—offer a solution. They allow people to gradually enter the property market, owning a portion of their home and limiting their exposure to rising costs. Even partial ownership can reduce housing expenses and foster financial stability.

4. Promote housing people actually want

A high number of new units doesn’t automatically ease the housing crisis—especially if the wrong types of housing are being built. Housing serves two purposes: as shelter and as investment. When the latter dominates, new developments may not meet actual residential needs. Instead, they’re shaped by investor priorities: image, resale value, depreciation, location, and legal stability. Governments shouldn’t try to suppress these motives but can steer development with incentives and regulation. This might mean offering subsidized loans and fast-tracked approvals for desired housing types, while placing higher taxes or levies on investment-oriented projects.

5. Simplify the rules

Urban planning regulations have become increasingly complex—like airports that start out intuitive but turn into confusing mazes over time. Unlike airports, however, cities can’t be rebuilt from scratch. So we continue layering rules upon rules to adapt the existing urban fabric. This complexity drives up construction costs. Regularly reviewing and pruning outdated or unnecessary regulations would help. Simplifying building codes—especially for residential construction—can lower costs and encourage more affordable development.

6. Harmonize building regulations

In Germany, it’s said that fires burn in 16 different ways—one for each federal state. That’s how fragmented state building codes have become. Definitions vary, even on basic elements like retaining walls or permit exemptions. This legal patchwork complicates planning, slows down construction, and increases costs. It’s time for a uniform national code—and ideally, an EU-wide standard. Harmonized regulations would simplify approvals, reduce planning effort, and enable manufacturers and builders to work across regions without bureaucratic overhead. Costs would fall, quality could remain high, and homes would get built faster.

7. Centralize responsibility for approvals

Building approvals often stall because too many actors hold pieces of the puzzle. Large projects require sign-offs from multiple authorities—building, schools, roads, green spaces, utilities, and more. The process is opaque, fragmented, and slow. The Netherlands offers a compelling model. Its “Omgevingswet” consolidates disparate planning laws into one framework and channels all approvals through a single contact person. This streamlines timelines and clarifies accountability. Developers benefit from faster approvals, and the public gains more transparent governance.

8. Empower residents to become developers

Housing cooperatives are popular—but still produce relatively little housing compared to commercial developers. That could change if private individuals were given more opportunity to develop property themselves. For example, allotment garden owners could be granted the right to transform their small houses into full residential units—where feasible and ecologically responsible. This isn’t a utopian idea. Shenzhen’s first post-reform housing districts were built by villagers who lost farmland and were allowed to urbanize it themselves. The result? Rapid, affordable housing for millions of migrant workers. Empowering citizens to shape the city can unlock housing potential that traditional models miss.

9. Allow room for mistakes and learning

Mistakes in planning are inevitable. The real problem is a system so afraid of errors that it creates endless red tape, drives up costs, and delays urgently needed housing. Rather than trying to avoid all risk, we should design flexible, iterative processes. Pilot projects, phased implementation, and built-in evaluation mechanisms allow for adaptation. Learning from experience isn’t weakness—it’s smart governance. Mistakes are best managed by limiting their scale, not by pretending they won’t happen.

10. Lead with vision

Cities need a compass. Without a clear vision for how people should live, development drifts—reactive, fragmented, and politically vulnerable. A strong urban vision benefits everyone: investors gain predictability and reduce risk, which can lower costs; citizens gain clarity on the direction of their neighborhoods and a framework for participation; policymakers gain coherence in decision-making. A shared vision doesn’t mean uniformity—it means direction.

11. Be proactive, not reactive

Cities can’t afford to simply respond to market forces. Waiting until developers come knocking—or until a crisis hits—is a recipe for dysfunction. Instead, the public sector must take initiative. That means setting goals, identifying strategic sites, and being involved in all major developments—not just those it funds. Public leadership isn’t about rigid control. It’s about active participation, coordination, and the courage to shape outcomes instead of merely approving them.

12. Densify, wisely

Dense cities are not just more efficient—they’re more vibrant, sustainable, and resilient. Compact urban form reduces infrastructure costs, supports public transit, and fosters social interaction. But density doesn’t mean skyscrapers on every corner. Often, one or two extra floors in existing neighborhoods can make a big difference. The goal is to maximize use within the limits of systems, services, and livability. A city that densifies strategically can grow inclusively without sprawling endlessly.

13. Mix uses, mix lives

Zoning that rigidly separates functions—residential here, schools there, shops way over there—leads to dull cities and inefficient land use. Today, most urban functions can be combined. Schools can sit atop shops. Retirement homes can share blocks with kindergartens. Mixed-use buildings make neighborhoods more vibrant, flexible, and socially diverse. With good design, they even reduce costs and land consumption. It’s time to stop fearing functional overlap and start embracing it.

14. Build, build, build

Germany’s cities are growing—not just from newcomers but from long-term residents claiming more space: single households, aging populations, second homes. Supply hasn’t kept up. And while some advocate limiting prices through regulation or expropriation, these measures don’t address the root cause: too little housing. Only construction—targeted, plentiful, and sustained—can ease the pressure. Hamburg shows what’s possible. Its active housing policy has kept rent increases below those in Munich or Berlin. If we want lower costs, more social balance, and functional cities, there’s no alternative: we have to build.

15. Regulate rents—strategically

Unlike consumer goods, housing can’t be moved or scaled up overnight. That makes the housing market uniquely local and rigid. Rent regulation can play a role—but only when supply and demand are out of sync. The more distorted the market, the stronger the need for controls. But rent caps alone are not enough. They must go hand in hand with faster permitting, more public construction, and incentives for new supply. When the market rebalances, controls can ease. Smart regulation is dynamic, not dogmatic.

16. Make the target group part of the approval process

Currently, most building permits are granted based solely on design and technical plans. But cities are more than structures—they’re communities. Who lives in a building matters just as much as how it’s built. Permitting should consider ownership models, financing structures, and intended target groups. Does the development serve investors or residents? Will it house local workers or sit empty as an investment? Integrating these questions into the planning process can ensure that projects contribute to the social fabric, not just the skyline.

17. Tax second homes—and build with the revenue

In global cities, high-end apartments are increasingly used as second homes or investment properties. Often, they sit vacant for most of the year. This drives up prices and restricts supply without adding real social value. A targeted second-home tax could discourage this trend. The proceeds could fund new housing for those who actually need a place to live. Hong Kong charges a 15% premium for foreign buyers who don’t reside locally, and imposes an additional 20% if properties are flipped within three years. It’s a model worth adapting.

18. Lower project risk to reduce costs

Risk is expensive. The more uncertainty in a project, the higher the costs—banks increase interest rates, builders add buffers, and delays pile up. Reducing uncertainty through faster approvals, fewer appeals, clearer standards, and limited liability can cut these risk premiums. Even marginal improvements across multiple areas—planning, financing, regulation—can add up to major savings. Lower risk means lower costs, and that means more affordable housing.

19. Tackle NIMBYism—don’t let fear block progress

NIMBY—Not In My Backyard—is one of the most persistent barriers to urban development. People may support housing in theory, but oppose it the moment it affects their street, their view, or their routine. Of course, community input matters. But personal inconvenience cannot outweigh the common good. Opposition should be limited to the immediate surroundings, and planning processes must clearly prioritize broader urban interests. Otherwise, nothing will change—and the crisis will only deepen.

20. Think bigger

Many German cities still plan with the mindset of the 1970s—when shrinkage was the norm. But the world has changed. Today, these cities attract people seeking opportunity, diversity, and a global lifestyle. Urban policy needs to grow up. Modest adjustments won’t solve major structural problems. Strategic growth, investment, and innovation are required. Cautious incrementalism only delays the inevitable: rising pressure, worsening inequality, and eroding trust. Bold thinking is not risky—it’s necessary.

21. Reward those who do more

Cities often treat all actors the same, regardless of their impact. But not all contributions are equal—and incentives should reflect that. What if socially responsible developers paid lower taxes or needed fewer parking spaces? What if landlords with capped rents got tax breaks? What if tenants involved in community service received rent discounts? Dynamic regulation can nudge behavior toward shared goals—while still leaving room for initiative.

22. Make housing a national priority

Cities bear the brunt of the housing crisis, but the federal government controls many of the levers: tax law, housing subsidies, planning frameworks. Too often, cities are left to fend for themselves. This is shortsighted. Dissatisfaction with housing conditions translates into political frustration. Not in Berlin, but in the school down the street, the leaking roof, the unaffordable rent. Urban development must become a federal priority—with funding, expertise, and strategy to match. Local resilience depends on national responsibility.

23. Stop placing expiration dates on social housing

In Germany, much of the social housing stock was built by private actors in exchange for temporary subsidies. Once these time-limited agreements expire—often after just a few decades—apartments revert to market rates. Unless constantly replaced, the social housing stock steadily erodes. Instead, social housing should be treated as essential public infrastructure. Long-term affordability can be secured only through permanent public ownership or contracts that never expire. Vienna and Singapore show how this can work at scale—and with success.

24. Adjust standards without sacrificing quality

German housing is among the world’s highest in quality. That’s a point of pride—but also a driver of cost. Not every home needs a basement. Not every wall needs five layers of sound insulation. Smaller apartments, shared amenities, or above-ground storage can maintain quality of life at lower cost. Standards should serve people—not the other way around. It’s not about cutting corners. It’s about smarter design and more flexible expectations that reflect real needs.

25. Learn from post-war housing—but avoid past mistakes

After WWII, Germany faced a massive housing shortage. The response was large-scale, industrialized housing construction. While some of these developments later became stigmatized, they served a critical function: they housed people, quickly and affordably. We don’t need to copy the concrete blocks of the 1960s, but we can learn from the urgency, the scale, and the pragmatism of that era. New technologies and materials make it possible to revive this spirit—without repeating its architectural mistakes. Think post-war efficiency meets 21st-century livability.

26. Promote owner-occupancy with tax reform

In Germany, tax law heavily favors rental properties. Investors benefit from generous write-offs and depreciation rules. But owner-occupiers get almost nothing. This creates a skewed market: people with capital buy homes to rent out, locking others out of ownership. To reverse this, tax advantages for buy-to-let investments should be phased out—especially for new purchases—while incentives for owner-occupiers should be expanded. This could include deductions, loan support, or tax credits for first-time buyers. More ownership strengthens neighborhoods and gives people a direct stake in their cities.

27. New housing models are not the enemy

Housing is not static. It evolves with technology, culture, and lifestyle. Where once we needed private kitchens, garages, or libraries, today we can share services or access them digitally. Micro-living, co-living, or shared housing might not appeal to everyone—but for many, they are practical, even preferred, solutions. They can reduce loneliness, cut costs, and offer flexibility. Such models should not be dismissed as profit-driven gimmicks. They are part of a wider housing ecosystem. What matters is quality, choice, and integration—not conformity.

28. Think services, not assets

Ownership isn’t always necessary. Increasingly, people are renting services rather than buying things outright—from streaming music to leasing cars. Why not apply this logic to housing infrastructure? Elevators could be leased. Kitchens rented from suppliers. Even windows or façades could be delivered as part of service contracts. This might sound futuristic, but it’s already happening in commercial real estate. Reducing upfront capital needs can lower barriers to ownership, expand access, and make housing more adaptable over time.

29. Be honest about trade-offs

Everyone dreams of Friedrichstrasse in the front, the Baltic Sea in the back. But no city can offer it all. Urban living comes with compromises: less private space, more shared infrastructure, greater density. Yet these trade-offs bring benefits—vibrant neighborhoods, better transport, diverse communities, and efficient services. Cities must clearly communicate that denser living is not a punishment, but a necessity—and an opportunity. With the right planning, higher density can mean better quality of life.

30. Invest in transit to expand housing options

“Location, location, location” drives housing prices—but location is not a fixed concept. It can be changed. Public investment in transport and social infrastructure can make less central areas attractive. Fast, reliable connections, good schools, libraries, and healthcare can transform peripheral districts into desirable places to live. That eases pressure on hotspots and creates a more balanced city. More equitable housing depends on better connectivity.

31. Cut VAT for housing construction

In Germany, VAT on construction materials and services increases housing costs significantly—especially for private households, who can’t reclaim it. Temporarily lowering or waiving VAT for residential construction could reduce end-user prices quickly and without distorting the market. The Netherlands used this approach during the 2008 crisis—and it worked. Such tax relief should come with conditions: the savings must be passed on to buyers or tenants.

32. Rethink parking minimums

Underground parking can cost €30,000–€40,000 per space. For small apartments, that can be 10–20% of the price. And not everyone wants or needs a car. Cities should reduce or eliminate mandatory parking minimums—especially in well-connected areas—and promote alternatives like car sharing or bike infrastructure. Around the world, cities from Tokyo to Amsterdam to London have embraced this shift. The result? Less car dependency, more urban space, and lower housing costs.

33. Embrace residential high-rises—strategically

In cities that traditionally build low, high-rises provoke controversy. Yet they’re already rising—quietly, incrementally, often without much planning. Rather than fearing towers, cities should plan for them. In the right locations—near jobs, transit, and amenities—residential skyscrapers can deliver dense, efficient, high-quality housing. They reduce commuting, support services, and add architectural variety. Rotterdam shows what’s possible. By zoning for high-rise clusters, it has reshaped its skyline and expanded housing supply without sacrificing identity.

34. Introduce minimum densities

Planning laws typically set maximum densities—but in many cases, they should set minimums too. When large lots in desirable areas are underbuilt, it wastes urban land, drives up prices, and forces growth to the outskirts—raising infrastructure costs and emissions. A minimum density requirement ensures that valuable land contributes its fair share to the housing supply. Especially in affluent neighborhoods, this can help create more balanced, socially inclusive cities.

35. Prioritize quality green space—not just any green

In urban debates, “green” often means untouchable. But not all green space is ecologically valuable or socially useful. Some leftover patches of lawn or scrubland are poorly maintained, underused, and contribute little to biodiversity. Others—parks, urban forests, green corridors—are essential and irreplaceable. Cities should distinguish between the two. Protect and enhance what matters. But consider converting low-quality green areas into housing, especially in central locations. Compact cities allow surrounding nature to flourish—urban sprawl does the opposite.

36. Professionalize public urban development

Cities are complex systems—and shaping them demands serious expertise. Yet many planning departments are understaffed, underfunded, and unattractive to top talent. Public planners are expected to manage billion-euro transformations while working with limited resources and rigid bureaucracies. This must change. Urban development should be treated with the same professionalism as major cultural or sporting events. That means hiring experienced staff, offering competitive salaries, bringing in consultants when needed, and retaining institutional knowledge. If cities want to be serious actors, they must build serious capacity.

37. Build a culture of city-making—not just a planning bureaucracy

Urban development is more than drawing plans and navigating procedures. It is a cultural project, shaping how people live together and express shared values in space. Planners should not see themselves only as regulators, but as facilitators of dialogue, creativity, and community energy. Cities should cultivate partnerships—with NGOs, artists, neighborhood groups, businesses, schools, and residents. Participation shouldn’t be a box to check—it should be a co-creative force. A vibrant city isn’t engineered—it’s built by many hands.

38. Communicate early, clearly, and continuously

Resistance to change often stems not from the change itself, but from surprise and exclusion. People oppose what they don’t understand—and fear what they haven’t been told about. Transparent communication is a powerful tool. If residents are informed early about new projects, understand the reasoning, and are invited to participate meaningfully, many conflicts can be avoided. Trust builds when people feel seen, heard, and respected. Good communication costs little—but pays off in smoother processes and stronger public support.

39. Show people what’s possible

Most people base their housing preferences on what they’ve seen or experienced. If all they know is suburban single-family homes or 1960s concrete blocks, their vision of alternatives will be limited—and often negative. Cities should actively showcase innovative housing: compact units with smart layouts, quiet apartments near highways, attractive mid-rise infill projects, or shared-living models that combat loneliness. Demonstration projects, open houses, and visualizations can expand imagination and shift perceptions. Only what’s visible becomes thinkable—and eventually livable.

40. Rethink infrastructure—modular, local, and unsealed

Urban infrastructure tends to follow tradition: buried networks, sealed roads, centralized systems. But that’s not always necessary—or smart. Today, water can be harvested and treated locally. Solar and geothermal energy can power individual buildings. Streets don’t have to be entirely paved—permeable surfaces, green drainage, and planted paths offer cheaper, more ecological alternatives. Modular, decentralized systems can reduce costs, improve resilience, and enhance environmental quality. Infrastructure can evolve too.

41. Make land use more flexible

Rigid zoning categories often prevent cities from adapting to changing needs. A commercial area that no longer serves its original purpose might sit empty while housing demand surges nearby. Cities should allow more mixed-use flexibility: commercial into residential, industrial into live-work, single-use plots into hybrid developments. That doesn’t mean removing all controls—but loosening overly narrow categories can unlock space and creativity. A flexible city is a livable, adaptable one.

42. Densify around public transit

More people means more movement. Without planning, that means more traffic congestion. The answer: link density to public transport. Dense development should be focused where transit capacity already exists or can be expanded. Transit-oriented development—TOD—is already a best practice worldwide. Cities like London use tools like the PTAL index to allocate density based on accessibility. This approach builds more sustainable, accessible cities—without overloading roads or isolating communities.

43. Rethink space standards for public facilities

Schools, libraries, gyms, and kindergartens take up vast amounts of urban land—often due to outdated space requirements or inflexible design templates. But creative solutions exist. Why not put playgrounds on rooftops? Embed sports halls into residential buildings? Stack uses instead of spreading them out? Doing so could free up land for housing, reduce public costs, and even create multifunctional community hubs. Reimagining public facilities opens up new spatial and social possibilities.

44. Back private initiatives with public support

The city cannot solve the housing crisis alone. But many residents are willing to help—if the system allows them. Support grassroots housing projects with advice, seed funding, training, and matchmaking. Offer administrative help, meeting space, or small grants. This is not charity—it’s investment in civic capacity. Resident-led projects often foster stronger communities, social cohesion, and a sense of ownership. Supporting them builds trust and multiplies the city’s ability to act.

45. Allow profit—but not everywhere

Housing must remain an attractive investment. But not all housing needs to generate profit. Cities can set quotas for non-profit or affordable housing in new developments—like London’s requirement for “social components” in every project. These units are rented or sold below market, limiting returns but serving essential needs. Balancing profit and social responsibility creates a more equitable market—and ensures that housing remains a public good as well as a private asset.

46. Don’t sell all your assets

In recent decades, many cities sold off their public housing stock to private investors. This offered short-term budget relief—but at a long-term cost. Selling property means giving up control. Cities that once shaped their housing policy now find themselves dependent on private actors with different goals—often focused on profit maximization rather than affordability or social cohesion. It’s time to reverse course. Public land and housing should be treated as strategic assets. Before selling, ask: Could a municipal housing company develop this instead? Could individual tenants buy instead of a global fund? Sometimes selling makes sense—but it should never be the default.

47. Reaffirm the social obligation of property

Germany’s constitution states that property carries a social obligation. But in practice, this principle has faded—replaced by a culture of entitlement and individualism. Urban living demands shared responsibility. Owners benefit from city services, infrastructure, and rising land values—often created by public investment. In return, they must also contribute to the common good. That could mean accepting moderate rent controls, restrictions on speculation, or responsibilities toward tenants. At the same time, the state must uphold its side of the bargain: by investing in supply, simplifying regulation, and building trust. A functioning housing system is a two-way street.

48. Support residential mobility throughout life

Housing needs change over time—but the system makes moving difficult, expensive, and emotionally draining. A functional housing market depends on mobility. People should be able to move into a bigger flat when they form a family—and into a smaller one when they no longer need the space. That frees up housing, optimizes space use, and improves quality of life. Policymakers can support this with tax relief for moves, advisory services, and financial incentives for right-sizing. In extreme cases, even tax penalties for over-occupying could be considered. Making it easier to move helps everyone live better—with less waste and more dignity.

49. Solve problems together, not in isolation

No single actor can fix the housing crisis alone—not governments, not developers, not civil society. But together, they can. Collaboration begins with a shared diagnosis, followed by clear goals and binding commitments. Governments must lead, but also listen. Investors must earn profits, but also build responsibly. Citizens must demand fairness, but also stay engaged. Effective urban development is a team effort. It’s not about finding villains—it’s about building coalitions.

50. Speak a language people understand

Too often, housing debates are filled with technical jargon, abstract goals, or contradictory signals. That erodes trust. People deserve honesty: What can be done, when, and at what cost? What trade-offs are necessary? What won’t work? Clear, direct, visual, and accessible communication helps people engage, form realistic expectations, and become part of the process. Whether it’s a town hall, a planning notice, or a policy strategy—language matters. Cities are shaped not just by buildings, but by how we talk about them.

P.S. I wrote the first version of these 50 recommendations six years ago, triggering many skeptical reactions. It is great to see that Germany’s new Minister for Housing, Urban Development and Building, Verena Hubertz seems to change that in sharing some of the same ideas with her program to boost housing construction. 40 more to go 😉